License-reader firm says new law curbs free speech

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By JACK GILLUM

WASHINGTON (AP) - The surveillance industry is fighting back. A company that makes automated license plate readers sued Utah's government Thursday over a new law there intended to protect drivers' privacy.

Digital Recognition Network Inc. of Fort Worth, which makes license-plate readers that rapidly scan the tags of passing vehicles, argues that a new state ban on license-plate scanning by private companies infringes on its free-speech rights to collect and disseminate the information it captures, and has effectively put it out of business there.

The case is an early example of pushback as Congress and state legislatures consider proposals to rein in phone-records collection, drones and license-plate readers. At least 14 states are considering measures that would curb such collections.

Republican state Sen. Todd Weiler, who sponsored the new law, said his proposal gained momentum after legislators discovered police were gathering widespread data from mobile license-plate readers. He said those cameras can be useful, such as recovering stolen cars, but he worried about the privacy implications when organizations store that data indefinitely.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140213/DABUHI9G2.html

[blackspade]

1. Free speech violation?

That is some tortured logic.

[grahamhgreen]

2. I guess a peep hole camera would be a free speech violation too, then!!! WTF

[Nye Bevan]

3. So by the same logic, I should be able to take secret photographs in public bathrooms,

because the law that prevents me from doing so interferes with my "free speech" right to publish such photos on the internet.

I am a big free speech proponent but that is a screwed-up argument.

[marble falls]

4. These guys use the word rights pretty damn lightly.

[Earth_First]

5. Nothing a clear coat of Krylon spray on your plates cannot stop...

Shouldnt have come to this, however you fight the establishment any way you can.

Fuck their $50,000 toys.

[Captain Stern]

12. The paint thing doesn't work.

Neither do the plate covers.

http://radartest.com/Red-Light-Camera-Countermeasures-Test.asp#Blocker

[davidpdx]

21. The better option is to paint the plate reader

If it's not up very high. A little red white and blue would work well.

Every time someone drives by they could salute it.

[William Seger]

13. Myth Busters Episode 73

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode73

They didn't test Krylon, but they did test hair spray and a product that claims to block plate readers: busted.

[blkmusclmachine]

6. ,

,

[Veilex]

7. "collect and disseminate the information"

does not equate to speech.
Nothing about free speech involves the collection of information.

[jsr]

8. They'll demand "equal protection" next.

[bemildred]

9. Collecting other peoples information is not "speech" of any sort. nt

[melm00se]

10. I am not saying that I am for or against this

but do you have an expectation of privacy of the outside of your vehicle while driving on a public road?

Toll barriers that record the license plates of cars to apply tolls to the registered owners of those vehicles are one example of this kind of technology.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. I don't drive on toll roads.

[JoePhilly]

11. License plates belong to the State, not the driver.

The state issues you a license plate. Its not yours. And they expect you to return it, or to officially transfer it, or to destroy it when you sell your car.

They knew who they issued it to.

[happyslug]

15. Plates have to be returned to the State? Not in All states.

In some states the plates stay with the Vehicle, in others with the owner when the car is sold. A third group of states demand new plates for the car and turn in the old plates.

No matter what the rule is, the plate is still viewed as the property of the State, just a comment that not all state expects you to return the plate to them.

[Igel]

20. So do road signs.

If I take a picture of a bunch of road signs and set them up on a website, is that free speech or could they tell me to stop because, well, I'm taking a picture of something that's "not mine."

Or perhaps scenary in a state park.

Or the Capitol.

[marble falls]

14. "Corporation have rights, my friend, corporations are people!" They really believe that poop.

[frylock]

16. wonder how they'd feel about "free speech" if someone were to hang out in front of their home..

and snap pictures of their family all day?

[KamaAina]

17. A binoculars firm could make the same argument

against laws against being a Peeping Tom.

[Aerows]

18. Well, you know

Free market and all of that. If you are in a business that nobody wants, you go out of business, so they should quit pouting and find some other line of work.